All-round obsession - Inbox at Cricinfo

Now they are picking Flintoff, a not-very-good-test-batsman (at the moment) to play at six, Broad, a not-very-good test bowler, at eight because of his batting. Some people will go "what about the 2005 Ashes then?" and that's fair enough - but the team structure worked then because Flintoff, Jones and Giles kept up their ends with the bat. The moment they lost batting form (any one of them), it didn't work - and that's where you get into difficulty, because a fast bowler, keeper and spinner should be in the team on their basis to bowl fast, keep and spin the ball, not score runs.

The number of dud all rounders England have tried since Botham is staggering: Derek Pringle, Chris Lewis, De Freitas, Dominic Cork, David Capel, Craig White, Ronnie Irani, Alex Tudor, and Ben and Adam Hollioake are just some. These players all had their moments but their presence in the team almost always threw out the balance. They got some runs but no wickets or wickets but no runs; they boosted the bowling a little or weakened the batting a bit, or weakened the batting but boosted the bowling. They made the selectors see-saw between Jack Russell and Alec Stewart, just as they now chop and change with Read, Jones, Prior and Nixon. But such is the lure and glamour of the all rounder that no one seems to care.

I like Freddie Flintoff - who could not like Freddie Flintoff? He's a good enough player to be picked in the team, but as a bowler - he's not good enough to bat at six. Stuart Broad should not be in the test team as a bowler mainly because he's a "not-bad" number eight batsman. That's madness. England had the balance right in the third test - play six batters, and Flintoff at seven. Yes, they lost that test. But remember that England were put in a winning position in that test because of the efforts of a number six batsman (Collingwood). Does anyone think that would have happened if Flintoff had played at six? They just needed to keep their nerve.

But England's selectors snapped under pressure - and now it looks like they're going to win the 4th test, they'll keep making this mistake, and they'll keep losing and wonder why. The great thing about test cricket is that it finds you out in the end. England are trying to take short cuts, and they will come undone. Until they learn that lesson they will always remain a second-rate side.

Let's not forget, not all of the people in the above list were picked as allrounders. Pringle, Lewis, DeFreitas and Cork - and Mark Ealham, as well - were all picked as "bowlers who could bat a bit" long after any real hope had been given up on their batting, and all of them had their moments with the ball: Cork in particular being a mainstay of England's bowling attack for several years, and DeFreitas was one of England's most reliable bowlers for about three years. Tudor was only ever a bowler (though he failed at that), never even considered as an allrounder. Irani, White and the Hollioakes were supposedly stronger with their batting than bowling at county level, but none of them achieved much with either bat or ball at international level (White came closest, with a century, a couple more decent 50s, and a couple of years in which he surprised everybody with fine fast bowling before his back gave out.)

Only White and Lewis managed to score a century and take a five-wicket haul.

Most of these selections have been pragmatic. As Australia have shown, if you have six great batsmen and four great bowlers available you can pick them, together with your best wicketkeeper, and you've got a good team. Anything else (Warne and Gilchrist's batting, Waugh and Clarke's bowling) is a bonus.

England have seldom had this luxury. When you're not sure about the quality of your batsmen it makes sense to look for insurance in the form of bowlers and a wicketkeeper who can bat; when your best four bowlers can't bowl the opposition out twice you're going to need another option.

If anyone can suggest six English batsmen who will consistently score 400 runs an innings and four English bowlers who will bowl the opposition out we can forget about the all-rounders. I can't see it myself.

It's worth mentioning that whilst the all-rounder policy failed in the last Ashes it worked in 2005 - Flintoff, Jones and Giles all contributed massively to England's win.

Excellently written Stephen, and I couldn't agree more. Australia went through the majority of their golden period without a genuine allrounder (although we were constantly told that we were looking for one), we simply had bowlers who could chip in with the bat occasionally when required, and a top seven who rarely failed as a collective unit.

But seriously mate, let's let the Poms go on looking for the next Botham. They've wrapped up a consolation win against an uninterested South Africa ("Yawn...the series is won boys, don't bust a gut out there...) and now Pieterson says they're good enough to beat Australia. They've got a long nine months ahead of them and their allrounder obsession to deal with first.

Congrats on a great piece.

You have to analyse the team the author takes as the benchmark: i.e. the Australian team of the early 2000s. Taking a different starting point, it seems to me that the sort of problems which the author alleges that England have equally persist in the current Australian selectors minds.

4 bowlers is only enough when you've got someone like Warne who can take the ball in about the 15th over and bowl long attacking spells. With no world class spinner in the offing, the selectors are looking to play batting all-rounders (Roy and, in my view, Watson) along with a decent part-time bowler in Michael Clarke. It seems to me that it was the excellence of Warne allowed the selectors (and the author) the luxury of advocating a 4 man attack with 6 batters. My view is that England (and Australia) need 5 bowlers if they are to bowl teams out twice consistently and both sets of selectors seem to acknowledge this. It is a great advantage if some of them can hold the bat, but 5 ‘proper’ bowlers are essential.

Concerning wicket-keeping, it seems to me that the Australians are on the edge of suffering the malaise of finding the best wicket-keeping all-rounder as they seem unsure about whether to go for Haddin or Ronchi. Getting the balance right at number 7 (or possibly 8) may be equally problematic for the Australians over the next couple of years.

Concerning England selections, Matt Prior is arguably a better bat than Collingwood, and Alec Stuart (who knows) claims he has improved considerably behind the stumps. He should bat at 6. Flintoff remains a top class batsman in my view but is badly out of form and is best at 7. Broad showed enough in the last test for me to think that he is definitely worth persisting with the ball, even though I’ve been definitely sceptical up until now. He is also a very decent number 8. Yes, there are some compromises here, but these must be made in the absence of the luxury of giants of the game like Warne. It seems to me that both sets of selectors recognise this problem.

I'm flattered that Pat and Paul took the time out to respond to my piece. And their comments illustrate exactly what I am talking about - the constant search for "insurance" in English cricket. Picking batsmen for their bowling; picking bowlers for their batting. What you end up with is players who contribute in neither and unbalance the side.

England have plenty decent batters who could play at six - Shah, Joyce, whoever. And their attack is good enough - Panesar is world class.

Australia has tried the all-rounder thing over the years, and have almost always suffered because of it. Steve Waugh was picked as a bowler while touring the Windies in 90/91. Simon O'Donnell was picked as a bowler because of his batting in 1985. Wayne Phillips was picked as a keeper because of his batting. Australia kept losing in these periods, due in part to those selections.

You need all rounders in one day cricket because of the ten over limit on bowlers. But you don't need them in test cricket.